Uh, welcome everyone. This is the July 23rd, 2025 special magistrate hearing. Um and uh it's time to get started. So um madame clerk, do you want to read uh
the announcements, please? >> The purpose and function of the Jack symbol beach special magistrate hearing in accordance with Florida statutes chapter 162 and the city of Jacksonville Beach code of ordinances is to reach an equitable expedition to enforce the
codes. The city presents the violation and evidence to the special magistrate. Next, the property owner is sworn in and responds to the violation and evidence. Both the city and the property owner may call witnesses to provide sworn
testimony relevant to the case. This is a quasi judicial hearing, not a public forum. Individuals not called as sworn witnesses will not be heard. Uh, thank you very much. And I see um,
Miss Beavers, uh, will open case number 24-267. Uh, the property owner is Des Luna LLC. >> Yes. Good afternoon, special magistrate.
Um, this case was a continuence from our June hearing um, in regards to a non-conforming sign. the business had been um unoccupied and vacant and did not
display message for over 180 days. As you can see in the picture, this is the um sign and and as of July 23rd, the sign has been removed so this case can be closed. Okay, thank you very much for that
evidence. Um, uh, based on the prior order, the non-conforming poll sign was deemed discontinued. Um, and the respondent was required to remove it uh, no later than today and it uh, obvious
from the photograph exhibit C, you're showing that the sign has been removed. I will um I will u issue an order finding that the um respondent has complied and uh close the case. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> All right. >> Well, I I should have asked just to make stop for a moment. >> Is there anyone here to speak on it just to make sure? >> I don't think they're >> okay. I just wanted >> Okay. >> I should know that. Shouldn't have done
that, but um yeah. So there's no one here to speak on this particular >> and I need to be sworn in. >> You need what? >> To be sworn in. >> Oh, you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. So help you, God. >> I do. >> Thank you. And and would you just confirm that uh the EV that the testimony you gave previously on case number 24 267
uh was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Your name? Nikki Beavers Walker, City of Jacksonville Beach Code Enforcement Officer. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss Beavers.
We are moving to um the next item on the agenda is for parish rentals. Um this case was also for a non-conforming sign. The business had been closed for over 180 days.
>> Excuse me. Just for the record, u Miss Beavers, the information that you had just on the screen uh a moment prior says it's two case number 24-291. My >> I'm sorry, it should be 24281.
>> 24281. Okay, thank you very much. >> And under the non under section 34450 non-conforming signs, like I said, this business had been closed for more than 80 days. Um, as you can see, it was
Seahorse. It was formerly Seahorse um floors. This is the sign. And in exhibit C, which isn't a good photo, but the sign has been removed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, my recommendation is to close this case. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, is there anyone
here to testify in regards to Parish Rentals, uh, case number 24-281? Seeing no one, uh, we'll close uh the hear the public hearing portion. I will um I agree with the uh recommendation
and uh we'll issue an order finding that the respondent is in compliance and closing the case. Okay. >> All right. Moving right along to case number 25303.
property owners RHC Associates um doing business as Dunkin Donuts at 1325 Beach Boulevard section 34450 for non-conforming sign. Um this sign was damaged. The last time
the last verifiable year that the sign was intact was back in 2022. Um, as you can see, the top half of the Dunkin Donut sign has been damaged and
has not been up there since 2022. Um, it would be more than 50% of the cost to repair the sign, which is also a non-conforming sign, and where
the city is asking that the sign be removed and be replaced with a monument sign. Right now, the property is in transition of change of ownership. Um, I did get a call from the owner today stating that um I'm not sure if it was
the buyer or the current owner that is ill. So, >> that is why >> that they're ill and they wouldn't be able to attend today. Um, this was a continuence from the June
hearing. Um they were to present um estimates of how much it would be to replace the previous signage um or if they were going to just remove it. My
recommendation would be a $250 per day fine until the sign has been removed. Is there anyone here to speak on uh RHC Associates um case number 25-303?
Okay, please come forward and uh for the record, please uh speak your uh provide your name, address, and uh and be sworn in by the clerk. >> My name is Paul Walter Amarl. My address
is 601 First Street South, uh, unit 6C, Jacksonville Beach, 32250. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> Um, Mr. Emerald, you may proceed. I was um I was hoping I don't know how to how this works, but I was hoping we could get a continuence on two two uh problems. One, Mr. Patel is not able to be here today,
and this concerns him more than it does me because he's responsible for the sign. Uh and secondly, we were not able to get the pricing in within the amount of time that we were given. uh we did reach out to them and they are working
on it and we're within days on getting these numbers. Uh we could email them to you or we could if we could do it another day, we could do it another day. So I I that's what I was hoping to do
here today is get a continuence. >> Could you tell me why you weren't able to get the estimate? >> Not enough time, ma'am. >> Not enough time. Not enough time. >> Yes, ma'am. >> But you said at the prior hearing that it was enough time.
>> I I believe as I recall you said that it wasn't. >> I probably did say that, ma'am, but it just wasn't. I I'm not the ones who I assumed it'd be enough time to to get the prices, but it wasn't.
Is there anything else you want to to to say about >> No, ma'am. >> The situation? >> No, ma'am. >> Your honor. Um, can I ask who was the company that you >> I sorry, you you have to speak into the
microphone because >> um was there a particular company that they had already contacted? >> But I don't I don't Kevin contacted the companies. >> Okay. And I don't know who he I can get that to you today. >> Okay. >> Um but I don't know who they are
standing here right now. >> Okay. Um your honor, our next hearing is scheduled for August 27th. If the property owner can get that information to me prior to that hearing, um then that way we'll have that
information by the next hearing. So, so I I appreciate that very much, Miss Beavers. Um, I'd like for the city uh to have that information about a week before August 27th to allow
the city to review it and provide it, quite frankly, provide it in their notice to me. That's right. >> Um, uh, when they send the agenda packet to me. Um, I don't know. Uh,
that would be August 20th. >> Okay. >> Would be a Wednesday. Correct, Madam Clerk? Um, and um, I believe that if you do not I think I'm
going to issue an order that if you do not have that um, estimate in by then that uh, you'll be potentially subject to the $250 fine starting that day.
>> Absolutely. Um now um that that I see Mr. Popley wants to add something. You need to be sworn in. >> Please state your name. >> Christian Papoli.
>> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> So this is Christian Boli, senior planner. Um the director and I had a conversation about not only this sign
but other signs that have been um discussed in uh enforcement cases and um her interpretation of the code has always been that a sign is a single unit. So in this case the sign itself uh
was damaged and this question of 50% doesn't really apply in this case because again it is a non-conforming sign. it's been uh partially destroyed and it can't be reerected or relocated. So, I know your thoughts were that it
was the 50% question, but the director as the person who is legally entitled to interpret the code under the city's uh ordinances, number two is the thing that they were cited for originally and the thing that they should be considered under. So, I think it's really just a a waste of
everybody's time to go through the cost evaluation because it is a non-conforming sign. It was damaged and it can't be reerected. Um, do Okay, this is completely, you know, new information to me. >> Well, I don't arguing about for the
last. >> Excuse me. >> I wasn't finished. Um, uh, I don't see anything. Can you point to something here that or is there a written interpretation? Uh because I'm looking very specifically
at 2 A and 2B. Um and remember non-conforming signs are allowed to remain in existence unless um something either under two or four causes them to
become no longer legally non-conforming. So I don't Um could you point tell me how uh this interpretation or what in number two um points to that direction?
>> Um it is a legal non-conforming sign that is no longer erect or at least a portion thereof and it can't be reerected. >> Well, my understanding is that they are not requesting to to reerect it. In
fact, the order that I signed last time was that the city was amendable to allowing the existing sign face to remain and to be updated with a change of copy for the Dunkin Donut business, provided no structural alterations are
required, and provided the existing vertical poles on either side of the existing sign face are reduced in height to match the top of the existing sign face. So, are you saying that the city is now pulling back from that of what
that offer that the city made on uh at the last hearing on June 25th? >> No, what I'm saying is that regardless of what the cost is, it's really a question whether they want to amend this sign or they want to build a new sign.
The order intent was that the sign would be a monument sign when they were done, regardless of how it was done. But this portion of the sign has not been damaged, right? >> This portion of the sign has not been >> um uh
you know you're so so I don't think that they're even asking to reerect the upper portion. >> That was my understanding last time that they were asking for that. >> Are you asking to still reerect the top portion?
>> Yes, ma'am. We're going to look at both both ways. Rerecting the the top part or changing the uh the reader board or the marquee to a Dunkin Donut sign.
>> Well, even this section has the 50% or more Mr. Bubbly under C. It says any non-conforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt in full conformity to terms of this division if it is damaged or allowed to deteriorate to such an extent
that the cost of repair or restoration is 50% or more of the cost of replacement of such sign. >> Correct. And number two says that a non-conforming sign shall not be reerected, relocated or replaced unless it is brought into compliance with the requirements of this division.
>> Right? So they can't reerect it, >> but if they choose to cut the polls down and leave it, that's I think their decision. I don't think it affects the city stance that regardless they can't put the sign at the top of those existing polls any longer.
>> I think that they saying the same thing and I think the 50% still applies. >> I don't I think they're saying they want to put the sign back at the top and we are not amunable to that >> and that would require a 50% analysis. I like I said the director disagrees that
it is a non-conforming sign. It can't be >> she's not here. I I can't ask her any questions. >> I mean she is here. >> Oh you are. Well then why are you then I >> I'm her designate. I can speak on her behalf. >> No actually for you can't.
>> Our code says I can. >> No actually. Well maybe in some other setting other than special magistrate setting. So, if you'd like to come forth and speak on this and
tell me why you consider it to be one union, if you don't mind. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Heather Ireland, planning and development director. Um, I concur with every Monica. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Uh so it is the goal of the city to get rid of all non-conforming pole signs of which this is. The sign was uh damaged in a manner that the structure is no longer there. The
>> cabinet that held the message is no longer there. We historically do not allow those on non-conforming sides to be reerected, reconstruction, reconstructed, or replaced. It's one sign. It's not two signs. It's one sign with two separate components. It's got
the permanent sign and their variable message sign which are are allowed you're allowed to have that you know two separate components to one sign but because this has been damaged and it's non-conforming our stance like everything Mr. Polei said is that it
cannot be reerected or replaced unless it is brought into compliance. Now I know at the last uh hearing there was discussion of making this conforming. that would be totally fine if it met the requirements of a monument sign. So they
can have a I think it's a 30-in base. The variable message component can be 50% but there are height and size limitations. So we haven't seen any indication that any effort has been made to determine or figure out how this sign
keeping some of the components of it can be made conforming. If they're able to do that, we can issue them a sign permit that shows they're changing this into a conforming sign. But right now, it is not a conforming sign. It has been damaged where it I mean, it's not even if the
cabinet's not even there anymore. If the copy had blown out, they have just replaced that, but the whole structure of a portion of the sign is gone. So our our interpretation is that it needs to be either entirely removed and replaced or somehow
transferred into a conforming sign. So let me ask you a question. Last time there was a a decision by the city or an offer by the city to allow what I just read to allow the poles to come down to the height of the existing cabinet
and for uh provided provided and I'll read to you exactly what was in the order um allowing the existing sign face to stay and to be updated with a change of copy um for the Dunkin Donut business
provided no structural alterations are required um and and what Mr. Popley referred to was electrical uh kinds of things that as long as nothing needed to be changed and provided the existing vertical poles
on either side of the existing sign face are reduced in height to match the top of the existing sign. Is that in in your opinion does that meet the whatever the monument sign requirements that you just referred to?
>> Possibly, but we haven't seen any evidence that it does. Again, we need to see >> what what evidence are you looking for? Because >> that what they want to do will conform. There are height limitations. There are width limitations. >> You know, the height we're we're talking
>> this does not this does not conform to the current science standards. this being that picture >> that whole thing that whole structure does not comply because it is considered a pole sign. We don't allow poll signs. We allow monument signs currently and we have only allowed monument signs since
before 2010. So if I may ask another I want to go back to my first question. if they were to do to agree to what I just read, which was specifically exactly what the city said that they
were amendable to at the last hearing. Is that is that satisfactory in in your opinion? Again, possibly. We haven't seen how they're going to turn this sign into a conforming sign. If they can convert
this into a conforming sign, then absolutely. Yes. What do you think needs to be done to convert it into to make it? >> I just told you it can only have a base of a certain height. It cannot be vacant between the ground and the bottom of the sign. And this piece of the sign can
only be 50% of the entire sign which has size, height, and width limitations. We need to see those details. So, so isn't it up to the city to tell the applicant, the the respondent and this and the
special magistrate whether or not this sign as described at the last meeting at the last hearing, you you know what the height is, you know the size. I don't understand why you're not prepared to tell.
>> We can tell them the requirements in the code. I don't know how tall this sign is. I can tell you it's taller than me, but >> why don't you know? Why don't you know it's >> I have not measured it. >> I can tell them what the requirements are. They need to turn in a building
permit to us showing that their new sign, the conversion of this to a monument sign meets our code standards. So, you put the special magistrate in a very awkward position. The city has done this by first offering up and basically
what account seemed to me was a an offer to try to find a resolution and now you're saying in fact that that might not even meet your requirements. >> I don't know if it does. I haven't seen proof that it does or does not. That's what I'm saying. So we are happy to work
with them to say here are the requirements that you need to make this sign meet. So that's what we do. >> What happened this month? I >> I don't know. I wasn't involved in this process until today or this particular case until today. >> So I can't speak to that. >> Okay.
>> I don't know that they requested that from us. >> Minister Popley and Miss Beavers were. So why didn't that happen? >> Because they would have needed to submit a sign permit with like Miss Ireland stated that showed with the estimates
the specifications for the sign. They have not done so yet. >> So that wasn't raised at the last hearing. There was never any mention of a building permit being submitted. >> They It was stated because in order for
them to redo the sign, they would have had to obtain a building permit. And Mr. Pop um Popley, I recall, stated that we may or may not approve it.
I I he specifically said that it would be uh provided no structural alterations were required. >> Yeah. But they still would have needed to submit a sign permit. >> Made if I may, if they're going to alter that physical structure of the sign, at a minimum, the building official would
need to review it to make sure it's structurally sound. >> Of course, I understand >> that would be done through a permit process. >> Well, yes, I understand that. But the point of coming back today was for everybody to determine whether the uh uh
whether or not that was amendable uh to the respondent the offer from the last meeting. But now it seems like even if they said it was a they agreed to it, the city is saying well it may not be
possible anyway. They didn't provide that evidence today and that was also stated that today they were to provide that evidence and we have not yet received that evidence. >> I would like to um I'd like since you
are here and since Mr. hopefully started this conversation based upon the fact that um that he that you said that you re you consider the interpretation of number two. Could you
tell us, you know, where in number two, and I'm referring to 34-450, uh, sub paragraph 2, where do you understand that or what evidence do you have or how is it that you interpret,
uh, this structure um, sign to be a a single unit when in fact we know that it had two sign faces and it's got two pillars. Um, and that the one phase continues to exist. Um,
and just help me understand that. Present whatever evidence it is that you want me to take into uh consideration. >> The code allows one monument sign and previously prior to 2010, one pole sign per property. This is one sign
regardless of how many messages are on there. It's one sign. This sign is it was non-conforming and it is partially gone. So we are considering this non-conforming sign basically discontinued and it may not be erected,
replaced or relocated. That is our interpretation. That is my interpretation as the sole person permitted to interpret the code and I designated that authority to Christian to move forward with this case. So again, we are very happy to provide them
the standards so that they can work with a sign company to bring this sign if they can into compliance. But we haven't, to my knowledge, been asked to have a meeting with the property owner to go over what he needs to know to be able to work with a sign company to bring this sign into compliance with the
current code. Cost is is irrelevant at this point. it's a non-conforming poll sign and it either needs to go or be brought into compliance which again may be possible but we haven't seen evidence of that one way or the other. So why do you think that sub paragraph C is not
applicable about being ceased to exist for period of 60 days? I want to make sure we're on the same page. I'm under paragraph two. >> I'm this this could apply but it's we are
applying number two. A non-conforming sign shall not be reerected, relocated, or replaced unless it's brought into compliance with the code, which may be possible, but we have not seen evidence of that yet. That's if it's damaged. >> It has been damaged. It blew down in a hurricane. The whole cabinet's gone.
Okay, let me put it this way. Your your code says any non-conforming sign shall be removed or rebuilt in conformity to the terms of this de division if it is damaged or allowed to deteriorate to such an
extent that the cost of repair or restoration is 50% or more of the cost of replacement of such sign. You you don't you've already said it's partially it's partially damaged. >> Yes. And that's why you believe that
it's no longer a legal non-con sign. However, to reach that, you have to establish that the cost to repair or to restore is 50% or more. >> I'm considering it gone. So, it cannot
be replaced. It is the sign is gone. >> Well, that's that's very hard for me to believe in light of the picture that I'm looking at. >> You know what? in five years, they'll have to replace it anyway because we have a provision for all non-conforming signs to be gone in five years. >> That's fine. But so we would like them
to come into compliance with the code so they don't have to come back in four years and pay another however many dollars for a new sign because that will it will be what's what's going to happen. We can work with them to bring this sign into compliance if they give us the information we need to do. So, I
I definitely appreciate that and I think that, you know, from a from a business judgment perspective, that would be a very wise thing for the respondent to take into account. If I was the owner, I would certainly be thinking about that. Do I want to invest
in the in the uh restoration of this sign if I'm going to have to take it down in five years, or do I want to take my chances and restore it? because I don't believe that it's or or I don't believe that the cost to restore it is
going to be 50% or more of the cost to replace it. That that that's outside our decision >> certainly >> at least my decision. >> It's also my job to interpret the code and that's what I'm doing. No one else in this room. It's mine.
>> So So I still don't understand why you don't believe that this paragraph C is the 50% because that's my interpretation and it doesn't matter cuz we haven't gotten that information anyway even if we were going to use that. Well,
that's true, but it's hard for me to I've just heard that, you know, that uh we're willing to go to August 27th, but we've uh talked about requiring the
uh respondent to submit this information by August the 20th so that you and Mr. hopefully and uh Miss Beavers all have a chance to review it possibly with maybe even with the respondent
um and with this estimate both the estimate and the proposed uh what it would look like you know with the dimensions. So, you know, I have a hard time just ignoring sub paragraph C. Um,
and so, and I also have a hard time believing that the sign is no longer, you know, is is no longer in existence. Um um so I think that my ruling today is going to
be to uh go along with the idea of the August 27th and the August 20th submitt of the information no later than that. Um and uh we will come back on August the 27th. It's not what I wanted. I was
very specific in my um in my order last time. Um uh I want the confident evidence to be presented. If they don't if they don't believe that it's uh 50% then they you
Mr. uh Admiral needs to bring you need to bring competent substantial evidence before uh to present as evidence. I want to see that evidence submitted by August the 20th. We've been doing this I think
this is is this the third hearing, Miss Beavers? >> Yes. >> Yes. And um that's more than enough time. The first time quite frankly I gave the respondent 60 days.
>> 60 days. The very first hearing um I gave 60 days and now then I gave 30 days. So you've had three months and that's even since we've been hearing this matter. So in my opinion that's more than enough time. I'm not going to
give you any more time. August 20th is is it and um and I believe that that's more than fair >> quite frankly. Um >> M can I ask a quick question? >> Yes. >> Is it possible for them to provide the dimensions of the existing sign as part
of that? >> I'm sorry. Can they provide the dimensions of the existing sign as part of that information? >> Yes, actually I would expect him to do exactly to provide the dimensions um and because how is he going to provide us
with the evidence to um that shows the 50% or more quite frankly >> well and also the question of whether they can bring that sign into conformity. I think that would answer that >> exactly in in order to show one way or the other. Um, so
do you understand what it is that I expect to see? >> Yes, ma'am. >> On August the 20th? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, let's let's go over that so that all of us are in agreement. First um the we want the estimate and I want
to point to you specifically 34-450 sub paragraph 2C. That's what that's one portion of the evidence that I think that you need to bring forth. Then in addition I think
that uh I think that it's um necessary for you to bring the dimensions of this of this existing structure. Um, and in particular, uh, the dimensions of the height of the
existing cabinet and, uh, the I guess we also need the not only the height of the cabinet, but we also need the dimensions of the cabinet. >> That should be included in the quote. >> It should be, but it may not be. I want to make sure that it is
>> okay. >> Okay. And then um uh I think that August the 20th is going to be the deadline and we I will see you back here on August the 27th. And uh uh in the event that
you do not comply, I'm going to put into order that uh the $250 day fine will begin acuring against the property. And um you know I believe that everybody has tried to work with you and uh also the
the potential buyer and um enough time has has um has gone by so that um I will uh not entertain any further
extensions after August the 27th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um thank you uh thank you to each of you for being here to testify. I appreciate uh that very much. It's important um
that uh the city and you uh Mr. present testimony for me to hear and be able to make a decision based upon the evidence that's before me. So thank you. Okay. Can we move on to
um All right. Um, next we have Austin Surf Shop. This is up under Millennial Property Owner, Millennial Trust Company LLC. Um, this is in regards to a damaged
non-conforming pole sign. Um, >> no. I think I'm printing to the wrong thing. Um, this sign um has been I think the evidence >> the evidence was if I may that it was
deemed discontinued at the last hearing. >> Yeah. On the paper that you have, it also gives a date. I printed the wrong thing. the last time that it was actual sign of I think it was either 22 or 23
that I the last time I actual message and sign was on the pole. >> Um >> uh well the information in your report says that February 2021 was the last okay verifiable date. >> Yes. >> Before it was damaged. Correct. And um
let me see if we um we at the last hearing, Mr. Copy testified that based on Google Maps, the subject pull sign was damaged as long ago as April of 2022. >> Yeah. The last time that we actually saw
actual sign was February 2021 off of Google Maps. >> A sign phase. Okay, so that makes sense. This falls up under section 34450 under B4 um signs sign structures that remain
vacant, unoccupied or devoid of any message or display a message pertaining to a time event or purpose that no longer applies for a period of 180 days shall be deemed to be discontinued. It also follows up under 4 D that removal
of the discontinued non-conforming sign shall include all assigned support components, angles, irons, poles, and other remnants of the discontinued sign that are not currently in use or proposed for immediate reuse as evidenced by a signed permit application
for a permanent sign. Um, as you can see, um, as of today that the poll still remains. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, and just as a reminder, it was determined that the
sign is uh deemed discontinued. I I made that determination. Um and uh that the uh respondents testified that the front yard was too small to accommodate a
meaningful monument sign but had no survey. They had no survey or any other evidence to support that statement. Um I allowed uh the matter to be continued until today to allow respondant to
present evidence uh to support the statement that a monument sign is not feasible. That doesn't that that um the only reason for that was to allow them to come forward with that statement. it
does not um uh mean that the pole can remain the pole cannot remain under any condition. So um uh the um coming back to your recommendation is to
is for a fine uh until the pole is removed. >> Correct. >> Okay. And that would begin how soon? >> Today. >> Today. >> Yes. Okay. Um, is there anybody
I see some people in the audience who appear to want to testify. Is that correct? >> Please state your name. >> My name's Robert. >> Mr. PC, if you could step up to the mic and state your name and address. >> Okay. My name is Robert Playick. I live
at 724 First Street South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So, help you God. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um,
you can proceed. I have some questions, but you can proceed. >> Sorry. My understanding was I thought that she wanted fines to be starting. She wanted to give to give us 30 days to have the sign down would be determined at this hearing. I didn't know we had 30 days to have the poll down or it would
have been down. >> That's correct. Nobody said anything about when the poll happened at the last hearing. I agree with that. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um, so what else is there? Anything else? >> No, ma'am. Nothing else we agree with that need that folks got to go and we're
in the process of doing that. Um, I just I've got a couple design things that I have to get with the city to see that a monument sign. I can show you a picture from the not that angle looking down that will show you that from the front
edge of that chimney to the back to the edge of the sidewalk is nine feet. So a 4 by 8 foot sign which is what we have before centered in that opening leaves one foot on each side from the edge of the sidewalk to the edge of the thing.
I don't I don't know I don't know that a monument sign could be framed to fit within there. Well, you can have a smaller monument sign. >> Okay. Yeah. Right. Yeah, we could. We could even have the larger with with the
and be code compliant with the square footage and fit in between there. But one thing that's going to happen with that, uh there's a I have all the code with me. I didn't bring with me. There's a provision that no signage should block view of pedestrian action. Okay. Um, if
you can back up to where the one the pictures of where all that right there, that's just that's the north entrance to the parking lot of a strip mall right there. So, anybody coming out of that driveway will not be able to see
pedestrian traffic at all on the sidewalk front pass. I can if you wouldn't mind taking a look at my telephone, you can see exactly what it looks like at that alley. Have you provided the picture that you're talking about? Have you provided that to the city?
>> I have not. >> I was going to bring it to you just to show you because last time I got upset just about the angle looking like there's a lot of front yard up there. There's not. That's not >> Well, I'll look at this. I I will look at the photograph provided you provided to the city. However, it doesn't change
the fact that my order is going to be for you to remove the pole. >> Okay. >> And what you and the city decide to do about the new monument sign is is outside you know, I I allowed for you to have this discussion now's, you know, to
bring any kind of evidence to talk to the city for the last 30 days. Yeah. >> Um >> it doesn't sound like anything happened. >> There was no discussion. Um, and so I'm I'm not going to give you any more time
or or my order is not going to address what it is that you're going to do in the future, but the poll has to come down. Yes, ma'am. >> Now, I I would like to give the respondent 10 days to remove the poll.
There's no reason. It's one poll. It seems like it can be removed. Um, I'd like to give them 10 days. Um, uh, Miss Beavers, if that does not happen, then I'd say that you have to come back and tell me that it doesn't happen.
>> Um, and the $250 day will uh be retroactive back to the whatever the 10 days from now is. Can you, Madam Clerk, can you tell us what 10 days from now is? That would be July 6th.
>> Say again. >> July 6th. >> August 6th. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Yes, August 6th. >> I know. It's hard to believe July is already virtually gone. >> August the 6. Is that >> is that 10 business days or that's not
10 10 days from today would be August 2nd? Clark guess business days. >> Yeah, we're doing 10 days. >> Um, August the 2nd. What day of the week is that? >> That is a Saturday. >> Okay, let's make it the
>> the 4th. >> The 4th. That's a Monday. By, you know, by midnight on August the 4th, the sign the pole needs to be removed. >> The sign will be gone by starting next week. The pole will be gone. >> Okay, that's good.
Okay. So, I think >> you're stating, your honor, that >> if the sign if the pole is not removed on August 4th, then the fines will start on that day or >> Well, they would start on they would start on the 5th because he's got all
day on the 4th, >> right? >> No later than August 4th. >> Gotcha. >> He's got all day. So, any fines would start on August the 5th. >> Gotcha. And you would need to come back to me >> on the 27th. >> On the 27th.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Uh Mr. place. Um, thank you for being here today. >> Um, I would encourage you not to to to remove the poll and work with the city on finding a sign that you feel will be helpful to the business.
>> We will and I can work with that. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. All right. Um, your honor, that concludes all my That concludes all my cases for today.
>> Um, there's another case on the on the agenda. >> Yes, we're going to postpone that one until the August 27th so that the property owner will be properly serviced. >> We had a notice issue, so we're going to continue that one until the next hearing >> at the next hearing.
>> Yeah. Okay. I was like, this is a lot. So, um, but I did, you know, I did get all the different codes and, you know, I felt halfway prepared. Um, oh, are we on the record?
>> Um, Miss Ireland, are we on the record or do >> Yes. Yeah, that's fine. I just wanted to ask you before we end, we started this new procedure. I know you got an email from Mr. Polei. We want to our goal is to provide you with as much information upfront as we think is going to help
you. So if you have suggestions, it's new to us. We never done it this way before. So we're trying to follow the same process we do for our planning commission, board of adjustment, city council, CRA, etc. >> I do I do think it's better. >> Okay, good. >> I would ask one other thing. uh I think
it's important for the whole record and that is that to be sure that the notice um that you know the the information about the ownership and the notice is the very first thing that Miss Beaver
should ever say and talk about that notice was provided when and u and therefore it meets the requirements >> the timeline is actually in there in the memo Um the dates can I approach?
>> Oh yeah, on the back side >> that's the timeline of when all the violation notices, all the inspections, the notice of hearings, everything is in that timeline from the beginning of the case.
>> So the notice of hearing in this, let's just use this as an example, was issued on June 25th. And was that for all of the >> every single thing from every inspection, every notice of violation, the notice of hearing, all of that is in
that timeline. >> Every single date. >> It's in the timeline, but I don't have the actual document. >> Okay. So, if you want the actual document, >> then I would be able to track. Okay. In this notice of violation, it says the violation is of 34- you know, the one we
just did, 450. Um and uh >> because the violation is the same thing that is going to be on the notice of hearing. >> Yeah. Um so in this one I don't think that that's part I've got a lot of photographs but I don't think that I've got a actual copy of the actual
>> that one is the one that we're going to postpone till 27th. So I can provide the notice of violations and everything when we come back on the 27th. >> The notice the notice violation should have been attached. Um, it's a very long lengthy thing. What we didn't have was a notice of hearing. That's the one that
we failed to provide. So, that's why we're asking to continue it. >> It's about eight pages. >> I didn't >> Maybe it's in there. I I don't. >> Yeah, that one was pretty lengthy. Um, but we'll if you're good with kind of how we're moving forward, any
improvement suggestions you have, please let me know. Feel free to email me later even if you think of something because we we're trying to make it easier not just for you but for us and for anyone that's been issued a violation so that they have a better understanding and to get that information to everyone as soon as it's ready and not the day of.
>> Right. I do know that sometimes it's hard to tell what with the the notice of even though it says it's a notice of violation sometimes it's hard to understand what exactly is is the violation. It says with so on the notice
of violation I can show you a copy of one. I have one with me. Um >> sorry. >> I mean for instance it wasn't included in any of the sign ones this time. >> No this I I don't I just have because I
have the dates on there. But if you want a actual copy of the actual violation notice, I can show you. They say the exact same thing as the notice of hearing. >> Yeah. Let's take part when we went
through um this the stuff that you have, Nikki, for yours that has everything listed on the agenda. >> We changed that, Elisa and I. So, it is just like a heading that says this is the violation and then the notice on mine was attached that had all the details. >> Yeah. because that way the agenda is not
eight pages. >> So yeah, I mean that may be >> it's in the report, >> right? >> But we we'll work on making it so it makes sense. >> We'll continue to make it as as more clear as we move along and make improvements to the each memo.
>> It's much better and and all of >> Yeah. And just make sure when you're writing up your notice of violation that there's something that says specifically, you know, that the the sign uh the sign is
damaged and is no longer legal non-conforming and must be removed. And the fact that you haven't removed it is the violation. I mean, it's very straight, clear, one line. um some along those >> normally in the notice of violation. So
say if it was overgrowth in that right above the violation notice it states front side entire property is overgrown. It specifies exactly. So if it's a junk
vehicle it states that the jump it's considered a junk vehicle because it has an expired license plate. So it is detailed in the violation notice so they know exactly okay what debris is she talking about the debris in the backyard.
>> So that's that's that's that's very good. So it isn't it is in the violation notice >> and then I also place door hangers and I take pictures of the door hangers. So, the door hangers before they even get
the violation notice, they have a it's a door hanger that's left at the property that also specifies what violation is and how to remedy it. So, they they get a couple of things to know what they're
being cited for in um included with the violation. So, yeah, they do. But I can provide pictures of each one of those if you want all of that as well. >> I think if it's in the notice of violation,
>> if it's in the notice of violation, Miss Beaver, so if it's in the notice of violation, >> it clearly stated in the notice, that's that's good. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, um then, uh we will continue
the um case number 24-217 to um to the August 27th hearing. And uh this hearing